No company has lobbied more fiercely against network neutrality than Verizon, which filed the lawsuit that overturned the FCC's rules prohibiting ISPs from blocking and discriminating against Web content. But the absence of net neutrality rules isn't just good for Verizon—it's also good for the blind, deaf, and disabled, Verizon claims.

Further Reading

That's what Verizon lobbyists said in talks with congressional staffers, according to a Mother Jones report last month. "Three Hill sources tell Mother Jones that Verizon lobbyists have cited the needs of blind, deaf, and disabled people to try to convince congressional staffers and their bosses to get on board with the fast lane idea," the report said. With "fast lanes," Web services—including those designed for the blind, deaf, and disabled—could be prioritized in exchange for payment.

Now, advocacy groups for deaf people have filed comments with the FCC saying they don't agree with Verizon's position.

"We also take this opportunity to express our concern over the reported contentions of at least one broadband provider that the Commission should facilitate 'fast lanes'—essentially permitting paid prioritization—for the sake of accessibility," the groups wrote on July 18, adding a footnote that links to the Mother Jones article. "While we strongly believe that Internet-based services and applications must be made accessible, we also believe that doing so is possible on an open network and without the need for broadband providers to specifically identify traffic from accessibility applications and separate it out for special treatment.

"To the extent that accessibility-specific applications implicate non-commercial prioritization concerns such as quality-of-service guarantees, we believe those concerns likely can be addressed on the same terms as other, similar applications through the Commission’s case-by-case approach to its exception for reasonable network management," the filing continued. "In no case should accessibility considerations form a basis for permitting paid prioritization more broadly, and the Commission should reject any overture to the contrary."

The comments were filed by Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.; the National Association of the Deaf; the Hearing Loss Association of America; Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network; and Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications Access.

While Verizon has lobbied against the FCC reclassifying broadband as a common carrier or "Title II" service, the deaf advocacy groups favor reclassification. The groups say reclassification is important for network neutrality and the ongoing transition from landline phones to Internet Protocol-based voice, which doesn't face the same utility-style rules applied to our traditional phone system. "Title II reclassification would afford the Commission substantial additional flexibility to ensure that broadband services are accessible to people with disabilities," they wrote. "This additional flexibility is likely to prove particularly important as the telecommunications system moves from the public switched telephone network ('PSTN') to Internet Protocol ('IP')-based networks and diverse telecommunications modes emerge that substitute the Internet for the PSTN."

The American Association of People with Disabilities also urged the FCC to "consider banning [paid prioritization] to preserve and protect the Open Internet. Paid prioritization has the potential to create arbitrary subdivisions in the online market... We believe this has the potential to harm investment in edge providers who drive the virtuous cycle, and people with disabilities stand to benefit significantly from the innovations of the virtuous cycle." This group also said the FCC should "look to Title II as a way to secure the interests of public safety, consumer protection, consumers with disabilities, and privacy."